5. Which of the following is Not included in the passage? A) If one sleeps inadequately, his performance suffers and his memory is weakened B) The sleep patterns of short sleepers are exactly the sane as those shown by many mental patients C) Long and short sleepers differ in their attitudes towards sleep D) Short sleepers would be better off with more rest

　　【答案及详解】 答案：DCBAB 贝克尔和哈特曼报道说，“睡眠少的人”在未进入少年期之前，其正常睡眠时间大致与所需要的时间差不多。但到了15岁左右，由于学校、工作或其它活动的地压力，他们就故意地减少了夜间睡眠的时间。这些人持有这样的观点：夜间睡眠是一件令人讨厌的事情，打断了日常事务。 总的说来，这些“睡眠少的人”表现得雄心勃勃、积极活跃、精力充沛、无意识乐观豁达、立场坚定，对自己职业的选择胸有成竹。他们往往同时从事几项工作，或者一边上学读书，一边从事专职或兼职工作。其中许多人有强烈愿望，想在朋友和熟人面前表现得“正常”或“合群”。 当让他们回忆梦境时，“睡眠少的人”回忆不起什么来。更有甚者，他们似乎情愿什么都记不住。类似的情况是他们通常处理心理问题的方式：不承认问题的存在，希望只要忙忙碌碌，麻烦总会过去的。 “睡眠少的人”的睡眠模式与被划入疯子之类精神病患者的睡眠模式十分相似，只不过没有那么严重而已。 “睡眠多的人”情形则大不相同。贝克尔和哈特曼报道说，这些年轻人从小的，有抱负的睡眠就一直很长。他们好像注重睡眠，不让睡眠受打搅。偶尔没有所需的9个小时夜间卧床休息，他们便会十分不安。他们比“睡眠少的人”要更能回忆得起梦的内容。许多“睡眠多的人”腼腆、焦躁、内向、压抑、消极和稍微有点儿沮丧，尤其在社交场合缺乏自信。好几个人坦言，睡眠是摆脱每天烦恼的一种方式。

　　Passage Three

　　Method of Scientific Inquiry

　　Why the inductive and mathematical sciences, after their first rapid development at the culmination of Greek civilization, advanced so slowly for two thousand years—and why in the following two hundred years a knowledge of natural and mathematical science has accumulated, which so vastly exceeds all that was previously known that these sciences may be justly regarded as the products of our own times—are questions which have interested the modern philosopher not less than the objects with which these sciences are more immediately conversant. Was it the employment of a new method of research, or in the exercise of greater virtue in the use of the old methods, that this singular modern phenomenon had its origin? Was the long period one of arrested development, and is the modern era one of normal growth? Or should we ascribe the characteristics of both periods to so-called historical accidents—to the influence of conjunctions in circumstances of which no explanation is possible, save in the omnipotence and wisdom of a guiding Providence?

　　The explanation which has become commonplace, that the ancients employed deduction chiefly in their scientific inquiries, while the moderns employ induction, proves to be too narrow, and fails upon close examination to point with sufficient distinctness the contrast that is evident between ancient and modern scientific doctrines and inquiries. For all knowledge is founded on observation, and proceeds from this by analysis, by synthesis and analysis, by induction and deduction, and if possible by verification, or by new appeals to observation under the guidance of deduction—by steps which are indeed correlative parts of one method; and the ancient sciences afford examples of every one of these methods, or parts of one method, which have been generalized from the examples of science.

　　A failure to employ or to employ adequately any one of these partial methods, an imperfection in the arts and resources of observation and experiment, carelessness in observation, neglect of relevant facts, by appeal to experiment and observation—these are the faults which cause all failures to ascertain truth, whether among the ancients or the moderns; but this statement does not explain why the modern is possessed of a greater virtue, and by what means he attained his superiority. Much less does it explain the sudden growth of science in recent times.

　　The attempt to discover the explanation of this phenomenon in the antithesis of “facts” and “theories” or “facts” and “ideas”—in the neglect among the ancients of the former, and their too exclusive attention to the latter—proves also to be too narrow, as well as open to the charge of vagueness. For in the first place, the antithesis is not complete. Facts and theories are not coordinate species. Theories, if true, are facts—a particular class of facts indeed, generally complex, and if a logical connection subsists between their constituents, have all the positive attributes of theories.

　　Nevertheless, this distinction, however inadequate it may be to explain the source of true method in science, is well founded, and connotes an important character in true method. A fact is a proposition of simple. A theory, on the other hand, if true has all the characteristics of a fact, except that its verification is possible only by indirect, remote, and difficult means. To convert theories into facts is to add simple verification, and the theory thus acquires the full characteristics of a fact.

　　1. The title that best expresses the ideas of this passage is

　　[A]. Philosophy of mathematics. [B]. The Recent Growth in Science.